Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 473 676 JC 030 119
AUTHOR Zhai, Lijuan; Monzon, Rey
TITLE Community College Student Retention: Student Characteristicsand Withdrawal Reasons.
PUB DATE 2001-11-14
NOTE 23p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the CaliforniaAssociation for Institutional Research (26th, Sacramento, CA,November 14-16, 2001).
PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Reports Research (143)Speeches /Meeting Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Academic Persistence; *Community Colleges; Demography;Dropout Research; *Dropouts; Financial Support;Nontraditional Students; *Parking Facilities; *School HoldingPower; School Schedules; *Two Year College Students; Two YearColleges; Withdrawal (Education)
IDENTIFIERS *San Diego Community College District CA
ABSTRACT
This study examined the profile of community collegedropouts, in an attempt to identify how this cohort differs from university-level dropouts and to identify reasons for community college students'withdrawal from school. The authors argue that the profile of a typicalcommunity college student--a person who has a full- or part-time job, livesoff-campus, and is taking classes on a part-time basis--makes retention aparticular challenge for the community college student. The population ofthis study was defined as those who dropped out of one of 3 communitycolleges in the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) (California)during fall 2000 semester, and those who did not return for the followingspring 2001 semester. Three types of students were defined based onwithdrawing time frames: (1) students who filed an application for the fall2000 semester, but did not enroll in any classes (n=5,459); (2) students whowithdrew from all classes during the fall 2000 semester (n=7,481); and (3)students who did not persist in the following spring 2001 semester(n=10,968). Information was collected from student records and a surveyquestionnaire was sent to random samples of students to assess their reasonsfor leaving. Reasons for leaving included class and work schedule conflicts,financial difficulties, lack of financial aid, and lack of parking in urbanareas. (Contains 9 tables and 16 references.) (Author/NB)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
Paper presented at 2001 CAIR (California Associate of Institutional Research) AnnualConference, Sacramento, California, November 14-16, 2001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research
and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)IPThis document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
0
0
Community College Student Retention:Student Characteristics and Withdrawal Reasons
Lijuan Zhai, [email protected]
Office of Institutional ResearchSan Diego Community College District
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
Introduction
The student withdrawal from colleges in United States has long been recognized as a
significant social, economic, and educational problem (Umoh, Eddy, Saulding, 1994).
Therefore, improving student retention has become and continues to be, a crucial
challenge for higher education. It is a challenge sparked by the increased number of
students leaving colleges or universities prior to degree completion and the decreased
number of college going student population in the United States. Despite efforts of
tackling attrition issues by various college and university programs, only 46.7% of
students in four-year public universities and 38.7% in two-year institutions will graduate
(Tinto, 1993).
The results of many studies suggest that retention is a complex issue that seldom has
a single cause but involves the interaction of different variables (Astin, 1975; Cope &
Hannah, 1975; Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1987, as cited in Umoh et al.,
1994). Recognized variables related to student retention include various student
characteristics and student-institutional interaction, academic aptitude and performance,
level of aspiration and motivation, institutional type, image, student services offered, and
2 BEST C PY AVAILABLE
student involvement-plus the development of a sense of belonging or degree of fit that
results from student and institution interactions (Beal & Noel, 1980; Lenning, Beal, &
Sauer, 1980). Furthermore, retention, student satisfaction, and student success appear to
improve when retention efforts are geared toward integrating the student's total
educational experience (Umoh et al, 1994).
Researchers also believe that variables related to educational goals may influence
student retention. For example, Kinnick and Kempner (1988) found a significant
association between student retention and the following variables: high school GPA,
socioeconomic background, parental income, type of college first attended (two- or four-
year), educational aspiration, and high school preparatory programs. Those more likely
to complete a bachelor's degree were those with a higher high school GPA, higher
socioeconomic status, initially attended a four-year institution, higher degree aspirations,
and completed a college preparatory program in high school (Kinnick & Kempner, 1988).
The campus environment can also affect students' decisions to stay in or drop out of
school, particularly developmental education students. Studies indicate that
developmental education students who withdraw from college often rate the presence of a
hostile racial climate as an important reason for their withdrawal (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991). Observers report that faculty, especially in senior colleges and research
institutions, often have negative attitudes toward remedial students and are poorly
prepared to teach them (Gross, 1981). Increasing the presence of representative group
faculty members on campus has been recommended as a fundamental step toward
improving campus environments. As early as the 1970s, the shortage of African-
American and Hispanic instructors at two-year colleges was noted as a particular problem
2
(Olivas, 1979). A large body of literature is also devoted to student attrition of minority
students (Ting & Bryant, 2001).
Many researchers have examined the relationship between retention and student
demographic characteristics. Glass and Garrett (1995) found that retention and GPA were
not related to age, gender, race, employment status, college major, or college attended.
However, Tinto (1993) pointed out that older students were more likely to drop out. He
explains further that typical adult students were more likely to be married, to have
children at home, to live off campus, and/or to be employed while attending college.
Therefore, they were more likely to encounter greater problems in finding adequate on-
campus time to study in order to meet the minimum academic standards of the institution
(Tinto, 1993). Furthermore, many of these students either take one or two courses at a
time or leave for a semester or two and then return (stop-out). Because the average
community college student is generally older than students attending four-year
universities, they are more likely to fit the profile of the adult student described by Tinto
(1993). However, retention research on community college students is relatively sparse
or is conducted utilizing paradigms based on younger, residential four-year university
students.
Several researchers have examined retention issues specific to community colleges.
Voorhees's 1986 study employed a log-linear modeling approach to explore the
conceptual relationships between community college student persistence and several
variables, including student demographics, purpose for enrolling, intentions to return,
frequency of informal interaction with faculty, and satisfaction with the institution in
general. Results of this study revealed that full-time female students had greater
3
4
persistence rates than their male counterparts, while GPA, number of hours spent
studying each week, and frequency of interaction with faculty, had independent effects on
student persistence. Daniels (1990) also found students' academic goals and intentions to
significantly affect retention. In other words, the higher the level of one's educational
goals, the greater the likelihood of college completion. This was because the goal of
occupational attainment became the motivating force for undertaking and completing a
particular academic degree program (Tinto, 1993).
Although student retention has been investigated extensively in the past decades,
the focus was primarily on four-year institutions. Only recently has retention research
been conducted on the most diverse populations in two-year colleges, where attrition is
the highest (Grimes & Antworth, 1996). High attrition rates for both individual and
multiple community college systems, sustains interest in the options to improve
community college student retention (Beatty-Guenter, 1994). Moreover, the profile of
the typical community college student--a person who has a full or part-time job, lives off
campus, and is taking classes on a part- -time basis-makes retention a particular challenge
for community colleges (Bonham & Luckie, 1993). In other words, unlike residential
university students, community college students are constantly balancing the social and
academic demands of the college campus with the responsibilities of family and work.
Therefore, retention issues in community colleges are different from those in 4-year
universities. To better understand unique community college student retention, this
study is designed to identify and describe factors related to community college student
retention and reasons for student's decision to withdraw. It is hoped that this research
4
will yield some important information that can serve as the foundation for any effort to
improve student retention and success at community colleges.
Research Methods
The population of this study was defined as those who dropped out of one of three
community colleges in the San Diego Community District (SDCCD) during Fall
semester, 2000 and those who did not return for the following Spring semester, 2001.
Three types of student withdrawals were identified based on withdrawing time frames: 1)
students who filed an application for the Fall 2000 semester, but did not enroll in any
classes (n = 5,459), 2) students who withdrew from all classes during the Fall 2000
semester (n = 7,481), and 3) students who did not persist in the following Spring 2001
semester (n = 10,968). Student demographic information was collected from existing
student records on file. A survey questionnaire was also sent out to random samples of
students to assess their reasons for leaving. The following three research questions were
developed to guide this study:
1. What are the demographic differences among students who withdrew at three
different time frames and to what extent do they differ from the general student
population demographics?
2. What factors influenced students' decision of withdrawing and do these factors
differ among students who withdraw at different time frames?
3. What factors influenced students' decision of withdrawing and do these factors
differ among students who withdraw at different time frames?
5
Results
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. Results are summarized by
each research question.
Research Question 1. What are the demographic differences among students who
withdrew at three different time frames and to what extent do they differ from the general
student population demographics?
Table 1 presents the gender, ethnicity, and age distributions of students who left
SDCCD. Characteristics about the student general population were also included as a
basis for comparison. As can be seen in Table 1, a slightly higher percentage of male
students (50.7%) applied but did not enroll in any classes when compared to male
students in the general population (48.1%). For the group of students who withdrew
during the semester, the proportion of females was higher (54.1%) than the general
population (51.7%). In terms of the students who did not persist in the following
semester, little difference was found regarding the male and female proportion of
students.
6
Table 1. Student Demographics by Type of Withdrawals
DemographicsGeneral
population*Applied not
enrolled*Withdrew * Not Persistent*
Gender# % # % # % # %
Female 23,502 51.7% 2,702 49.2% 4,049 54.1% 5,731 52.3%Male 21,896 48.1% 2,786 50.7% 3,420 45.7% 5,224 47.6%Not reported 100 0.2% 7 0.1% 12 0.2% 13 0.1%
EthnicityAmerican Indian 524 1.2% 86 1.6% 92 1.2% 121 1.1%Asian 4,945 10.9% 419 7.6% 742 9.9% 1,111 10.1%African American 4,470 9.8% 821 14.9% 846 11.3% 1,012 9.2%White 2,0012 44.0% 2,194 39.9% 3,340 44.6% 4,963 45.2%Hispanic 7,814 17.2% 1,084 19.7% 1,248 16.7% 1,832 16.7%Filipino 2,830 6.2% 251 4.6% 443 5.9% 683 6.2%Pac Islander 431 0.9% 60 1.1% 73 1.0% 94 0.9%Other 1,976 4.3% 358 6.5% 313 4.2% 483 4.4%Not reported 2,496 5.5% 222 4.0% 384 5.1% 669 6.1%
Age17 or under 2,234 4.9% 290 5.3% 96 1.3% 634 5.8%18 24 21,030 46.6% 2,838 51.6% 3,040 40.7% 4,961 45.3%25 34 12,120 26.6% 1,324 24.0% 2,490 33.3% 2,954 27.0%35 or over 10,114 22.2% 1,043 19.0% 1,855 24.8% 2,419 22.1%
Total 45,498 100% 5495 100% 7,481 100% 10,968 100%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
With regard to ethnicity, it should be noted that of the students who applied but did
not enroll, there was a higher proportion of African American (14.9%) and Hispanic
(19.7%) students as compared to the proportions of the total student population; 9.8% for
African American students and 17.2% for Hispanic students respectively. The
distribution of students who did not persist from term to term was similar to the general
population in terms of ethnicity.
Finally, when compared to the general population, the students who applied but did
not enroll had a higher proportion of students between the ages of 18 and 24 (51.6% vs
46.6). Thus, students who applied but didn't enroll tended to be younger than the general
population. However, for the students who withdrew during the semester, they tended to
7
be older since there was a higher proportion between the ages of 25-34 (33.3% vs
26.6%).
Table 2. High School GPA by Type of Withdrawals
High School GAPGeneral
population*Applied not
enrolled*Withdrew * Not Persistent*
0.0-1.5 70 0.2% 12 0.2% 17 0.2% 16 0.1%1.6-1.9 332 0.7% 58 1.1% 63 0.8% 74 0.7%2.0-2.5 5,079 11.2% 744 13.5% 935 12.5% 1,053 9.6%2.6-2.9 10,297 22.6% 1,280 23.3% 1,689 22.6% 2,242 20.4%3.0-3.5 10,219 22.5% 1069 19.5% 1,539 20.6% 2,657 24.2%> 3.5 6,670 14.7% 539 9.8% 842 11.3% 2,004 18.3%Not reported 12,831 28.2% 1793 32.6% 2,396 32.0% 2,922 26.6%
Total 45,498 100% 5495 100% 7,481 100% 10,968 100%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent students who did not return in the following semester.
Self reported high school GPA information is summarized in Table 2. The data in
Table 2 shows a slightly higher percentage of students with a high school GPA between
2.0-2.5 for students who filed an application but not enroll in classes (13.5% vs. 11.2% in
the population). However, the non persistent students had a higher proportion with high
school GPA's over 3.0 than the general population (42.5% vs 37.2%). There were no
differences in GPA distribution between students who withdrew during the semester and
the general population.
8 9
Table 3. Educational Objective by Type of Withdrawals
Educational ObjectiveGeneral
Population*Applied not
enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*
% # % #
Transfer 20,858 45.9% 2,181 39.7% 3,300 44.1% 4,672 42.6%
Obtain AA/AS/Certificate -No Transfer 3,015 6.7% 474 8.6% 492 6.6% 656 6.0%
Career Related 8,141 17.9% 1,074 19.5% 1,422 19.0% 2,222 20.2%
Other 3,188 7.0% 548 10.0% 641 8.6% 977 8.9%
Undecided 9,142 20.1% 1,116 20.3% 1,428 19.1% 2,098 19.1%
Unknown 1,154 2.5% 102 1.9% 198 2.6% 343 3.1%
Total 45,498 100.0% 5,495 100.0% 7,481 100.0% 10,968 100.0%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
Educational objective was identified to be related to student retention in previous
research, therefore, this variable was also examined in this study (See Table 3). The
results in Table 3 show that the educational objective for 45.9% of the general population
is to transfer. This rate is similar for students who withdrew during the semester (44.1%),
but lower for those who did not persist (42.6%) and even lower for those who applied but
did not enroll (39.7%).
Table 4. Annual Family Income by Type of Withdrawals
Annual Income General Population*Applied not
enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*% # % #
$0-3,000 1,137 2.5% 203 3.7% 215 2.9% 240 2.2%$3,000-5,999 683 1.5% 82 1.5% 145 1.9% 100 0.9%$6,000-9,900 2,000 4.4% 237 4.3% 390 5.2% 364 3.3%$9,901-14,999 4,076 9.0% 594 10.8% 738 9.9% 823 7.5%$15,000-20,999 4,370 9.6% 606 11.0% 830 11.1% 1,047 9.5%$21,000-26,999 2,821 6.2% 355 6.5% 506 6.8% 666 6.1%$27,000-32,999 2,691 5.9% 343 6.2% 492 6.6% 712 6.5%$33,000 or over 10,417 22.9% 1,035 18.8% 1,548 20.7% 2,633 24.0%Unknown 17,303 38.0% 2,040 37.1% 2,617 35.0% 4,383 40.0%
Total 45,498 100.0% 5,495 100.0% 7,481 100.0% 10,968 100.0%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
91 0
Table 4 reports family income and the differences between withdrawal types. Of the
students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes, 21.8% of students'
annual family income ranged from $9,901 to $20,999 when compared to the general
population (18.6%). A slightly higher proportion of students in the withdrew group
tended to have a family income between $15,000-20,999 annually (11.1% vs. 9.6% in the
population). Finally, a higher proportion of students (24.0%) in the non-persistent group
tended to make $33,000 annually or higher in their family (22.9% in the population).
Table 5. Employment Hours by Type of Withdrawals
Working Hours/WeekGeneral
Population*Applied not
enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*#
Not working 10,654 23.4% 1,283 23.3% 1,529 20.4% 2,620 23.9%
Part-Time (1 39 hours/week) 20,456 45.0% 2,501 45.5% 3,287 44.0% 4,526 41.2%
Full-Time (40 hours or more/week) 13,819 30.4% 1,636 29.8% 2,551 34.1% 3,721 33.9%
Not reported 569 1.3% 75 1.4% 114 1.5% 101 0.9%
Total 45,498 100.0% 5,495 100.0% 7,481 100.0% 10,968 100.0%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
One of the major characteristics of community college students is that most work
part-time or full-time. Student employment information is summarized in Table 5. As
expected, a majority of the general student population is working either part-time (45.0%)
or full-time (30.4%). Moreover, all three types of withdrawal groups follow the same
pattern. However, students who withdrew during the semester or did not persist had
slightly higher proportions of students working full-time (34.1% and 33.9% respectively).
Table 6 shows enrollment status across the different types of withdrawals.
Significant differences were found between withdrawal types and the general population.
For example, the rate of first time students and first time transfers is 75.5% among the
students who applied but did not enroll, while the general population rate is 66.9%.
However, of the students who withdrew during the semester, only 22.5% were first time
students or first time transfers.
Table 6. Enrollment Status by Type of Withdrawals
Enrollment Status General Population*Applied not
enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*
Current High School Student 1,443 3.2% 172 3.1% 57 0.8% 376 3.4%First-Time Student 14,906 32.8% 2,296 41.8% 723 9.7% 2,576 23.5%First-Time Transfer Student 15,532 34.1% 1,850 33.7% 955 12.8% 4,859 44.3%
Returning Transfer Student 4,451 9.8% 380 6.9% 397 5.3% 1,239 11.3%
Returning Student 9,155 20.1% 797 14.5% 737 9.9% 1,918 17.5%
Continuing Student ? 11 0.0% 0.0% 4,556 60.9% 0.0%Not Reported 0.0% 0.0% 56 0.7% 0.0%
Total 45,498 100.0% 5,495 100.0% 7,481 100.0% 10,968 100.0%*General population total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent students who did not return in the following semester.
Table 7 shows students' cumulative college GPA at SDCCD.. The results suggest
that more students who withdrew, and did not persist tended to earn a GPA of zero. This
is because that more students who left were first-time new students or first-time transfer
students, therefore, this was their first semester.
11 12
Table 7. Cumulative GPA at San Diego Community College District
General Population*Applied not
enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*# % # % #
0 5,688 12.5% n/a n/a 2,566 34.3% 2,140 19.5%
0.01-1.50 3,330 7.3% n/a n/a 399 5.3% 854 7.8%
1.51-2.00 4,444 9.8% n/a n/a 597 8.0% 1,110 10.1%
2.01-2.50 5,680 12.5% n/a n/a 826 11.0% 996 9.1%
2.51-3.00 9,522 20.9% n/a n/a 1,211 16.2% 2,152 19.6%
3.01-3.50 7,403 16.3% n/a n/a 885 11.8% 1,512 13.8%
>3.50 9,431 20.7% n/a n/a 997 13.3% 2,204 20.1%
Total 45,498 100.0% n/a n/a 7,481 100.0% 10,968 100.0%*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
Research Question 2: What factors influenced students' decision of withdrawing and do
these factors differ among students who withdraw at different time frames?
A survey questionnaire designed to assess students' withdrawal reasons was sent out
to a random sample of students from each of the three types of withdrawal groups
described above. In the survey, a list of possible reasons were provided and students
were asked to check their reasons for not enrolling in classes or leaving the college.
Survey results are summarized in the following Table 8.
1312
Table 8. Withdrawal Reasons by Type of Withdrawals
Applied not enrolled* Withdrew* Not persistent*
-Financial difficulties -Conflict with work -Transferred to another(22.8%). schedule (31.0%). school (28.5%).
-Conflict with work-Conflict with workschedule (22.3%).
-Personal reasons(21.1%).
schedule (19.2%).
-Course schedulingReasons for leaving(survey results)
-Enrolled at anotherschool (21.8%).
-Parking issues (16.5%). issues (10.7%).
-Family obligations -Personal reasons-Courses were notavailable (14.5%).
(16.0%). (10.7%).
-Financial difficulties -Completed educational-Family obligations (14.5%). goal (10.7%).(11.4%).
-Dissatisfaction withinstruction (14.3%).
*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent - students who did not return in the following semester.
There were some differences and similarities between the three withdrawal groups
regarding their reasons for leaving SDCCD. Students who filed an application but did
not enroll in classes listed financial difficulties (22.8%), conflict with work schedule
(22.3%), enrolled at another school (21.8%), courses were not available (14.5%), and
family obligations (11.4%) as the top reasons for their decision to leave. Conflict with
work schedule (31.0%), personal reasons (21.1%), parking issues (16.5%), family
obligations (16.0%), financial difficulties (14.5%), and dissatisfaction with instruction
were identified as major reasons for withdrawing for students who withdrew during the
semester. Non-persistent students indicated transferring to another school (28.5%),
conflicts with work schedule (19.2%), course scheduling issues (10.7%), personal reasons
(10.7%), and completed educational goals (10.7%) as their reasons for not returning the
following semester. All groups felt that conflict with work schedule was a significant
barrier in their academic pursuits. Family obligations and other personal problems also
impacted students' decisions to leave negatively.
Research Question 3: What can the college do to encourage students to enroll in
classes/stay in school?
In the survey, students were also asked to provide their suggestions on how to retain
more students. A list of suggestions was provided to students who applied but did not
enroll and those who withdrew. Results were summarized in the following Table 9.
Table 9. What the colleges should do to retain more students.
Applied not enrolled* Withdrew*
Offer online registration (36.8%)
Offer more class sections during the evening(32.1%)
Offer more short term courses (30.1%)
Schedule courses on the weekends (27.5%)
More financial aid information should be available(23.8%)*General population - total student population.Applied not enrolled - students who filed an application but did not enroll in any classes.Withdrew - students who withdrew from all classes during a semester.Not persistent students who did not return in the following semester.
Increase parking capacity (33.4%)
More flexible class schedule (30.9%)
More online courses (18.1%)
More financial aid (16.7%)
More career-oriented programs (14.8%)
Results suggested that students who applied but did not enroll in any classes would
like to have online course registration (36.8%), more flexible class schedule (evening
classes, 32.1%; short-term class, 30.1%; weekend classes, 27.5%), and financial aid
information (23.8%) to encourage them to enroll in classes. For students who withdrew
during the semester, increasing park capacity (33.4%), more flexible class schedule
(30.9%), more online courses (18.1%), more financial aid (16.7%), and more career-
oriented programs (14.8%) would have helped them to stay in school.
1514
Conclusions and Discussion
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were formed:
1. When compared to the general student population:
a. Students who apply but don't enroll tend to
i. be male
ii. be younger
iii. be African American or Latino
iv. be part or full time workers
v. have lower high school GPA's
vi. have lower incomes
b. Students who withdraw during the semester tend to
i. be female
ii. be older
iii. be part or full time workers
c. Students who don't persist in the following semester tend to
i. be younger
ii. be part or full time workers
iii. have higher high school GPA's
iv. have higher incomes
2. Conflict with work schedule, enrollment at another school, personal reasons,
financial difficulties, and family obligations are cited as top reasons for
community college students to leave higher education.
3. To retain more students, the community colleges should offer more flexible
classes schedule and more financial aid. It is also noted that parking capacity
could be a big issue that influenced student retention in big cities.
The purpose of this study was to identify and describe factors related to community
college student retention and reasons for students' decision to withdraw. Based on the
time frame in which students withdrew from SDCCD, three types of withdrawals were
identified: (1) students who applied for the Fall 2000 semester but did not enroll, (2)
students who withdrew during the Fall 2000 semester, and (3) students who did not
persist to the following Spring 2001 semester. In addition, two research questions were
used to guide the research.
The first research question sought to identify any demographic differences among
the three withdrawal type groups relative to the general student population. Based on
previous research, several demographic variables were examined. These variables
included gender, ethnicity, age, high school GPA, educational objective, income, working
hours, enrollment status, and cumulative college GPA. Of the three withdrawal types,
students who applied but did not enroll appear to differ the most when compared to the
general student population. In particular, these students tended to be more male, African
American or Latino, and younger. In addition, they tended to have lower high school
GPA's and income. On the other hand, students who withdrew during the semester better
reflected the general population but tended to be more female and older, while the
students who did not persist in the following semester tended to be younger with higher
high school GPA's and higher incomes. Finally, relative to the general student
16.7
population, all three types of withdrawal groups had similar proportions of part-time and
full-time working students and students stating transfer as an educational goal.
With the exception of students who withdraw during the semester, the results
suggest that there are characteristics unique to students who apply but do not enroll or
students who do not persist to the next semester. For example, in explaining the higher
rates of younger students among those who apply but don't enroll, many graduating high
school students apply on average to 3 or 4 different colleges and universities, including
community colleges. Therefore, when a student applies to both a four-year university
and community college, the community college is more likely to be the fallback college
in case he or she doesn't get accepted into the university. Moreover, most students who
are not confident of their chances of getting into a four-year university will also apply to
their local community college. It is interesting to note that the students who applied but
didn't enroll tended to have lower high school GPA's and income, which are typically
considered academic and financial factors contributing to a student's chances of being
accepted to four-year universities.
In terms of students who did not persist, the results suggest that these students
have more options open to them. In other words, because they tend to be younger and
have higher high school GPA's and higher incomes, they have the means to go another
college or proprietary school. However, this group also had a higher proportion of full-
time workers (relative to the general student population), which would suggest that they
would leave for schools that provided a better selection of courses in the evening.
The second research question focused on the reasons stated by the students as to
why they withdrew. A survey questionnaire was sent out to random samples of students
17 18
to assess their reasons for leaving. In considering the results, the top reasons for leaving
were different among the three types of withdrawal groups. For example, many students
who apply eventually do not enroll because they can't afford the enrollment fees, thus it
is not surprising that financial difficulty was cited as the top reason for leaving among the
students who applied but didn't enroll. The top reason cited by students who withdrew
during the semester was conflict with work schedule. Again, this result seems plausible
because when students initially enroll in courses, many encounter problems with not only
getting the courses they want and/or need, but also getting the courses offered during the
times they can attend. Therefore, scheduling becomes the number one issue for these
students, particularly since most of them are either working part-time or full-time.
Finally, the primary reason for leaving cited by students who did not persist was because
they transferred to another school. However, transferring to another school would
suggest that the student completed his or her educational goal. Thus, with the exception
of these students, the next most cited reason for not persisting was conflict with work
schedule, which is also the top reason indicated by students who withdrew during the
semester. In fact, conflict with work schedule is a primary reason indicated by all three
types of withdrawal groups when the top two reasons are considered. Furthermore, it
should be noted that the top two reasons alone, make up almost half of the responses for
all three groups.
In summary, the results of this study strongly support the notion that community
college students are more diverse than university students, particularly in terms of age
and employment status. Consequently, when community college students do decide to
leave, regardless of whether they apply but don't enroll, withdraw during the semester, or
fail to persist to the next semester, it is primarily the result of the student's struggle to
maintain a balance between the academic and social demands of the campus and the
responsibilities of off-campus life (e.g., work and family). Furthermore, given the
relative ease for students to leave and then re-apply at community colleges, their off-
campus life usually wins out in this constant struggle for balance.
Recommendations
This research revealed important information for community college administrators,
faculty and student service personnel related to community college student retention.
These findings have implications on retention strategies which addressing community
college students' needs. It is recommended that to improve retention rates of community
college students, the following practices should be implemented:
1. Offer more flexible class schedule
Results of this study revealed that conflict with work schedule is the single most
important reason cited by community college students for leaving higher education.
As we discussed earlier, most community college students work part-time or full -time
and they have to balance work and school as well as family obligations. Therefore, it
is critical that the colleges offer a variety of class schedules to meet diverse needs of
the students. Short-term, evening, weekend, and online classes can all serve this
purpose.
2. Make financial aid information more readily available to students
Financial difficulty was also one of the most important factors cited by
community college students as their primary reason of leaving higher education.
Therefore, offering more financial aid would be an effective means to retain more
19 20
students. Community college students are also very diverse in terms of social
economic status, thus, providing more financial aid would help more many
disadvantaged students stay in school. It is recommended that information about
financial aid possibilities should be made available to students at any time.
3. Strengthen academic counseling service
Community colleges should offer adequate student academic counseling services
to all students. Counseling is the single most important student services for
community college students to get information about course offering, transfer, and
other resources. Counselors can help students understand what is expected of them in
order to complete their college degree programs or educational goal and where to find
assistance when it becomes necessary to do so. Most community colleges are
operating differently than 4-year universities where there are no academic advisors
for students. Hence, improving and strengthening counseling service is critical to
student retention and success in community colleges.
4. Improve on campus parking
Students also vigorously commented about their frustration with on campus
parking. Many of the students cited difficulty in finding an on-campus parking space
as their primary reason for leaving higher education. This issue is more significant in
urban colleges located at big cities, especially central cities. A majority of
community college students are all commuters, hence, improving on-campus parking
is critical to retain students at community colleges.
20 2 1
References
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing Students from Dropping Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Beal, P.E. & Noel, L. (1980). What Works in Student Retention: The Report of a JointProject of the American College Testing Program and the National Center forHigher Education Management Systems. Iowa City, IA: American CollegeTesting Program.
Beatty-Guenter, P. (1994). Sorting, Supporting, Connecting, and Transforming:Retention Strategies at Community Colleges. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 18, 113-129.
Bonham, L.A., & Luckie, J. A. (1993). Community College Retention: DifferentiatingAmong Stopouts, Dropouts, and Optouts. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 17, 543-554.
Daniels, G. (1990). Student Intention and Retention in a Community College Setting.ERIC document reproduction number: ED 325 165
Glass, J.C., & Garrett, M.S. (1995). Student Participation in a College OrientationCourse, Retention, and Grade Point Average. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice. 19, 177-132
Grimes, S.K. & Antworth, T. (1996). Community College Withdrawal Decisions:Student Characteristics and Subsequent Enrollment Patterns. Community CollegeJournal of Research and Practice, 20, 345-361.
Gross, F.L., Jr. (1981). Teaching the whole mind: A Developmental Structural Approach.Journal of General Education, 33(3), 175-188
Kinnick, M.K., & Kempner, K. (1988). Beyond "Front Door" Assess: Attaining theBachelor's Degree. Research in Higher Education. 29 (4), 299-318
Lenning, 0.T., Beal, P.E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and Attrition: Evidence forAction and Research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems.
Olivas, M.A. (1979). The dilemma of access: Minorities in two-year colleges.Washington, DC: Harvard University.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terezini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings andinsights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ting, S. R, & Bryant, A. Jr. (2001). The Impact of Acculturation and Psychosocial
Variables on Academic Performance of Native American and Caucasian CollegeFreshman. Journal of College Admission, ??, 22-29.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College Rethinking the Causes and Cures of StudentAttrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Umoh, U.J., Eddy, J., & Spaulding, D.J. (1994). Factors Related to Student Retention inCommunity College Developmental Education Mathematics. Community CollegeReview, 22 (2), 37-47.
Voorhees, R.A. (1986). Toward Building Models of Community CollegePersistence: A log-liner analysis.ERIC document reproduction number: ED 317 242
23
22
zU.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
ERIC I
Title: Community College Student Retention: Student Characteristics and withdrawal Reasons
Author(s): Lijuan Zhai, Rey Monzon
Corporate Source: N/A Publication Date:2001
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
0\e
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 1
X
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.
Signhere,-"
Organization/Address:please
The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 28 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
2A
Level 2A
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
2B
Level 2B
Check here for Level 2B release, permittingreproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
Signature:\
Printed Name/PositiorVTitle:
Lijuan Zhai, Research&Planning Analys
Co, s,, gut toiM e94 tete- Xii-Pl'as-
3 3 7 5 c044441tio elat Sotthii It.oviti ()_47
SckK PIA) CA 41-10P
6Adteciss:: .titt,Date:
FAX:`
1-1 b I 0.3(over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from anothersource, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteriaare significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Community CollegesUCLA
3051 Moore Hall, Box 951521Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521
800/832-8256310/206-8095 fax
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706
Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-552-4700e-mail: [email protected]: http://ericfacility.org
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.
